Earth Hour supporters propose ‘Carbon Law’

From the UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE and “that ain’t gonna fly” department comes this wishful thinking for Earth Hour.

A ‘carbon law’ offers pathway to halve emissions every decade, say researchers

On the eve of this year’s Earth hour (25 March), researchers propose a solution in the journal Science (24 March) for the global economy to rapidly reduce carbon emissions. The authors argue a carbon roadmap, driven by a simple rule of thumb or “carbon law” of halving emissions every decade, could catalyse disruptive innovation.

Such a “carbon law”, based on Moore’s Law in the computer industry, applies to cities, nations and industrial sectors.

The authors say fossil-fuel emissions should peak by 2020 at the latest and fall to around zero by 2050 to meet the UN’s Paris Agreement’s climate goal of limiting the global temperature rise to “well below 2°C” from preindustrial times.

A “carbon law” approach, say the international team of scientists, ensures that the greatest efforts to reduce emissions happens sooner not later and reduces the risk of blowing the remaining global carbon budget to stay below 2°C.

The researchers say halving emissions every decade should be complemented by equally ambitious, exponential roll-out of renewables. For example, doubling renewables in the energy sector every 5-7 years, ramping up technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere, and rapidly reducing emissions from agriculture and deforestation.

“We are already at the start of this trajectory. In the last decade, the share of renewables in the energy sector has doubled every 5.5 years. If doubling continues at this pace fossil fuels will exit the energy sector well before 2050,” says lead author Johan Rockström director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University.

The authors pinpoint the end of coal in 2030-2035 and oil between 2040-2045 according to their “carbon law”. They propose that to remain on this trajectory all sectors of the economy need decadal carbon roadmaps that follow this rule of thumb, modeled on Moore’s Law.

Moore’s Law states that computer processors double in power about every two years. While it is neither a natural nor legal law, this simple rule of thumb or heuristic has been described as a “golden rule” which has held for 50 years and still drives disruptive innovation.

The paper notes that a “carbon law” offers a flexible way to think about reducing carbon emissions. It can be applied across borders and economic sectors, as well as both regional and global scales.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, says, “Our civilization needs to reach a socio-economic tipping point soon, and this roadmap shows just how this can happen. In particular, we identify concrete steps towards full decarbonization by 2050. Businesses who try to avoid those steps and keep on tiptoeing will miss the next industrial revolution and thereby their best opportunity for a profitable future.”

Co-author Nebojsa Nakicenovic, deputy director general of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and member of the Earth League, said “Humanity must embark on a decisive transformation towards complete decarbonization. The ‘Carbon law’ is a powerful strategy and roadmap for ramping down emissions to zero so as to stay within the global carbon budget for stabilizing climate to less than 2°C above preindustrial levels.”

Joeri Rogelj, also at IIASA, said, “The carbon law outlines a global path towards achieving climate and sustainability goals in broad yet quantitative terms. It sketches a general vision of rapid emission reductions in conjunction with the development of sustainable carbon dioxide removal options. It clearly communicates that no single solution will do the job, and that this deep uncertainty thus implies starting today pursuing multiple options simultaneously.”

Malte Meinshausen, director of the Climate & Energy College at the University of Melbourne, said “Regions that make way for future-proof renewable energy and storage investments will turn a zero-emissions future into an economic opportunity. While for years, we’ve seen the ramp-down of incumbent fossil technologies only as burden, the other side of the coin is now finally visible: lower costs, more jobs and cleaner air.”

Following a “carbon law”, which is based on published energy scenarios, would give the world a 75% chance of keeping Earth below 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures, the target agreed by nations in Paris in 2015.

###

Notes:

The paper “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization” appears in Science as a peer reviewed “policy forum article” on 24 March 2017.

The Paris Agreement sets out a goal to attempt to keep global temperatures “well below 2°C” above pre-industrial temperatures. http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

The global average temperature is currently about 1.1°C above pre-industrial temperatures.https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-confirms-2016-hottest-year-record-about-11%C2%B0c-above-pre-industrial-era

What are the key carbon roadmap milestones to 2050?

Each decade has key milestones to reach:

2020: 40 Gigatonnes of CO2

2030: 20 GtCO2

2040: 10 GtCO2

2050: 5 GtCO2

Carbon dioxide emissions from land use fall from 4 GtCO2/yr to 2 Gt CO2, to 1 to 0,5 by 2050. New carbon sequestration technologies ramp up to remove CO2 from the atmosphere from 0 to 0,5. 2,5 to 5Gt CO2 by 2050.

How to get there:

  • 2020: remove fossil fuel subsidies. Put a price on carbon starting at $50 per ton rising to $400 per ton by 2050. Large-scale energy efficiency measures and large scale trials of carbon sequestration begin at 100-500MtCO2/yr.
  • 2030: coal exits energy mix, in this decade construction becomes fully carbon neutral or stores carbon, several cities reach carbon neutral status. Carbon sequestration of 1-2 GtCO2 begins.
  • 2040: oil exits energy mix early in this decade. Europe starts the decade with close to zero emissions. Other continents finish the decade close to zero.
  • 2050 global economy carbon neutral.
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
255 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MarkW
March 23, 2017 2:50 pm

It would be more effecient to just kill half the population every decades.
Which is what is going to happen anyway if they actually manage to implement these plans.

phaedo
Reply to  MarkW
March 23, 2017 3:24 pm

Don’t put ideas in their heads.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  phaedo
March 23, 2017 3:40 pm

Too late for that.
The hard part is gonna be getting them out.

wws
Reply to  phaedo
March 24, 2017 9:05 am

I propose a “Bite My Shiny Metal A$$” Law.

Reply to  MarkW
March 23, 2017 3:34 pm

We can start with the climate scientists and see how it goes. After that, it’s the accountants, lawyers, and hairdressers (according to Scott Adams.)

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 23, 2017 5:11 pm

Doug?

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 23, 2017 5:50 pm

Dang, yes Scott’s brother Doug.

Bryan A
Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 23, 2017 10:18 pm

Don’t even have to go that far. Just allow those who deem this the way to live, to live that way. IF there are really that many people who believe this is that bad of a problem, there is no law forcing them to use carbon based fossil fuel energy. If they all voluntarily switched away from their vilified fossil fueled energy, CO2 levels are sure to drop. I mean 97% believe so no laws are needed to force them away from what they should already be prepared to leave. If decarbonization is what they believe is needed, they should feel free to decarbonize.
Go put solar panels on your roof and pull your electric meter. ________ $60,000 (new roof likely needed)
Buy several 10KWH Tesla Battery Backups and have them installed.__$50,000
Buy a couple Tesla model S’s ______________________________________$190,000
Buy a couple more 10KWH battery backup fast chargers_____________$30,000
Pull your gas meters too gas is also a carbon based fuel
Have your gas furnace replaced with an electric one 120,000 BTU _____$1,100 (10KW load addition)
I would suggest a solar water heater but your rooftop is already covered
So you will need electric instant hot water adding 3.5KW load per unit ___$200 each
Shoot, this stuff is so cheap you could build in redundancy and not have to worry about power outages or personal global warming contributions any more. Best part is, it’s all voluntary and you don’t need the government to pay for any of it.

NorwegianSceptic
Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 24, 2017 4:23 am

I find hairdressers quite useful, actually.

Latitude
Reply to  MarkW
March 23, 2017 3:49 pm

not half, all…..they want to destroy one of the things that makes this plant habitable

higley7
Reply to  MarkW
March 23, 2017 4:36 pm

Hey, this rate of decarbonization would be killing millions perforce, no way around it.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  higley7
March 23, 2017 9:40 pm

higley7

SO long as these people lead the way – I will follow – (at the very end of the queue) – but I support their leadership;)

Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

Gerry, England
Reply to  higley7
March 25, 2017 6:23 am

Now you see what the plan is.

seaice1
Reply to  MarkW
March 23, 2017 4:48 pm

How are are you defining “efficient” here? Your proposed solution does not meet any definition I am aware of, so presumably you have some new definition.

Reply to  seaice1
March 24, 2017 1:20 am

I believe he’s using Hillary Clinton’s definition of “efficient.” You know, the “fun camp” method. Tried and true, proven effective some 60 years ago by one :”progressive” regime.

MarkW
Reply to  seaice1
March 24, 2017 6:17 am

The amount of energy needed to cut CO2 output in half.
You can spend trillions on renewable energy, which doesn’t cut CO2 at all, or you can spend a few billion and kill half the population.

JohnWho
Reply to  MarkW
March 23, 2017 5:57 pm

Soylent Green?

Bryan A
Reply to  JohnWho
March 23, 2017 10:27 pm

Sure beats that Yellow and Red Soylent

Bryan A
Reply to  JohnWho
March 23, 2017 10:28 pm

Delicious and nutritious, tastes just like old uncle Sol

Resourceguy
Reply to  MarkW
March 24, 2017 4:57 pm

They already have the one-child policy precedence to call up and gender bias selection for family planning.

Randall_G
Reply to  Resourceguy
March 25, 2017 2:36 pm

I’ve seen it poised elsewhere that gender selection by the parents should be illegal until the children are old enough to choose their own gender, one of the twenty seven currently available, prior to culling. 😉

Randall_G
Reply to  Resourceguy
March 25, 2017 2:36 pm

I’ve seen it poised elsewhere that gender selection by the parents should be illegal until the children are old enough to choose their own gender, one of the twenty seven currently available, prior to culling. 😉

Wally
Reply to  MarkW
March 24, 2017 11:03 pm

They don’t dare call it what it really is, CO2 Law

Noel Skippen
March 23, 2017 2:50 pm

Help me celebrate ‘Power Hour” on Saturday night. Celebrate the great benefits that reliable electric power has delivered by turning on your lights at 8.30pm!

Billy NZ
Reply to  Noel Skippen
March 23, 2017 6:20 pm

I’m going to celebrate human achievement day from 0930 until 2130 Saturday. Enjoy riding my bike,driving my car,and maybe do a little arc welding for the hour Saturday evening. Ain’t life grand with all our achievements. Made possible by fossil fuels.

asybot
Reply to  Noel Skippen
March 23, 2017 9:24 pm

Noel I am turning on every light on and in the house on Saturday at 8 PM pst. to celebrate the immense gift electricity has given mankind. ( including the TV, the Stereo and I might even run my car!)

March 23, 2017 2:55 pm

Moore’s Law states that computer processors double in power about every two years.
QED Moore’s Law states that computer models of the climate should double in accuracy about every two years.
However, that doesn’t happen. Because the need for CO2 reductions is based on climate models that are not limited by computational power.
They are limited on the realism of their basic premises.

Until the need for destroying the economy is certain we shouldn’t cause the suffering that goes with destroying the economy.

If you really want to “catalyse disruptive innovation” try the ‘innovation’ instead of the ‘disruption’.

Reply to  M Courtney
March 23, 2017 3:44 pm

Actually, Moore’s law is about shrinking transistors so that the effective computational power doubles about every 2 years. That strategy sort of hit the wall at 18nm. The cost, complexity, and yield hits weren’t worth the marginal advantage. Law of diminishing marginal returns overpowers Moore’s Law. But computational power advances continue ‘as if Moore’s Law’ because of software developments and processor specialization (think DSPs and graphics processors (which work in parallel architectures rather than a microporcessor von Neuman architecture). How much further before those tricks also hit the law of diminishing marginal returns, dunno.

Reply to  ristvan
March 23, 2017 4:40 pm

Intels were 3D. Samsungs are not general CPUs. The small parts are the system on a chip NAND memory. If you want to be clear, tell the whole story– as other commenters below have.

ferdberple
Reply to  ristvan
March 23, 2017 5:33 pm

That strategy sort of hit the wall
====================
true. Back in 2000 Intel was predicting 10 ghz chip speeds by 2011. But around 2005 part of Moore’s law ran into a brick wall. 20 years later 10 ghz Intel cpus remain as common as Unicorns.

Lots of clever solutions have been found to work around the problem. However, there still remains many problems in computer science that would benefit from clock speeds orders of magnitude greater than today’s.

http://www.geek.com/chips/intel-predicts-10ghz-chips-by-2011-564808/
https://www.comsol.com/blogs/havent-cpu-clock-speeds-increased-last-years/

PiperPaul
Reply to  ristvan
March 23, 2017 5:41 pm

My understanding is that the problem with parallel processing is writing software properly for it. Mumblysomething about prediction branches.

Jer0me
Reply to  ristvan
March 23, 2017 7:15 pm

It really doesn’t matter how much faster, bigger or cheaper chips become. Tge operating systems will always manage to use up any spare computing power and RAM.

How do you optimise a Windows application? Turn it into a DOS application! Even back on a 386 processor runing Windows 3.1, when I ran DOS applications, they were scarily fast. I hate to think how fast they would run now!

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  ristvan
March 24, 2017 8:55 am

Jer0me – March 23, 2017 at 7:15 pm

Even back on a 386 processor runing Windows 3.1, when I ran DOS applications, they were scarily fast.

Of course they were “scarily fast”, especially if those DOS applications were written in “assembler code”.

And the 2nd reason they were “scarily fast” is the fact that RAM memory was a premium …… and not “dirt cheap” like it is today.

Me thinks that current computing “applications” are suffering from “the Law of Diminishing Returns”.

As the CPUs got quicker, the available RAM grew quicker than quick ……. but the total amount of RAM resident program code required for the system to function properly increased exponentially.

From what used to be the CP “norm” of tens-of-thousands of bytes of program code ……. that CP “norm” is now tens-of-millions of bytes of program code.

And the computer time required to “navigate” through tens-of-millions of bytes of mostly redundant program code is equivalent to ……. “running around the barn twenty (20) times just so you can get through the barn doors”.

MarkW
Reply to  ristvan
March 24, 2017 9:44 am

Part of the problem is the migration to 4th generation languages like C++.
C++ is a developers dream because of all the stuff it does for you, it allows you to create more code faster.
The problem is that it does so much stuff for you, often stuff that you would never choose to do had you actually written the code for yourself.
The management/sales types, don’t care because faster computers can cover a whole host of programming sins.

Latitude
Reply to  M Courtney
March 23, 2017 3:53 pm

that computer models of the climate should double in accuracy about every two years.

Can’t be done. They are hind casting to temps that have been adjusted to show more warming.
…oddly enough….their linear projections match what they are hindcasting to
But not the real world

ossqss
Reply to  Latitude
March 23, 2017 7:57 pm

No matter the processing power, if the input is not right, the output is not right = Bias

Just sayin, all models, all the time, fail……

asybot
Reply to  Latitude
March 23, 2017 9:44 pm

ossqss +1

ferdberple
Reply to  M Courtney
March 23, 2017 5:52 pm

They are limited on the realism of their basic premises.
=================
spot on. You cannot model the future as the average of all possibilities as the IPCC would have you believe with their “ensemble mean” of individual models. If you could, you could average all rolls of a pair of dice, and this would tell you that the next roll will be a 7. And the roll after that, and the roll after that.

There are a near infinite number of future possible climates. Some warmer, some the same, some cooler. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere MAY increase the odds of arriving at a warmer future, but this doesn’t mean you will arrive.

Even if we pump out all the CO2 we want, the future can end up a roll of double 1’s, and we could plunge into an ice age by 2100. Because without a doubt another ice age is coming, and no climate model can tell us when. By 2100 we may wish we burned a whole lot of coal a whole lot sooner.

Reply to  M Courtney
March 23, 2017 6:00 pm

Eng, I was managing SoC stuff before you were probably born. System on a chip does not mean all portions of the die are same dimensioned. That difference follows from yield requirements.

commieBob
Reply to  ristvan
March 24, 2017 3:09 am

asybot March 23, 2017 at 9:48 pm

+1

It reminds one of the following quote:

A classic (although not legal) example of this focusing on minutiae at the expense of the larger issue is George Tyrell’s line: “if the Jesuits were accused of killing three men and a dog, they would invariably produce the dog alive.” link

It’s one of my favorite quotes but I can’t find the original. William F. Buckley Jr. seemed to know and used it here. Sadly, he’s no longer with us.

Philo
Reply to  ristvan
March 24, 2017 7:35 am

Please stop the useless arguing about Moore’s Law. He was talking about transistors greater than 10μm down to 10μm, the size in the first in the first microcomputer chip, the Intel 4004. They’re now three orders of magnitude smaller and nearly at the limit where electrons wander around through quantum tunneling, near the limit for conventional semiconductors.

At this point the real limits are starting to be connecting these incredibly small computers and other electronics to the outside world. You could conceivably fit 180 of the latest Intel processors(more if they were stacked up) behind a current 27in, monitor- a mini supercomputer on your desktop. Do we put a supercomputer in everyone’s pocket, or implant them in a built-in network?

Curious George
Reply to  M Courtney
March 23, 2017 6:08 pm

Let’s assume that for a double accuracy you need a model with a half-size cell (one cell divides into 8 smaller ones), and a half of a time step. That means 16 times more computations. But even then, for any accuracy you need correct physics – and they don’t have that. It runs very deep. At an elementary level, scratch the surface with https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257

Gamecock
Reply to  M Courtney
March 23, 2017 7:04 pm

“They are limited on the realism of their basic premises.”

Zactly. The problem is software. Megaflops can’t fix bad design.

March 23, 2017 2:56 pm

Why harm agriculture when there will be no measurable impact on the climate. Don’t these fools realize that when we eventually do run out of oil, our most pressing problem will be how to replenish atmospheric CO2 so that agriculture doesn’t crash.

Geoff
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 23, 2017 3:17 pm

True. Just like extinction events before. When the Sun cools, the Earth cools, then the oceans suck in lots of CO2 and everything dies.

BallBounces
March 23, 2017 2:56 pm

Alternatively, we could simply halve the number of climate scientists every ten years. The climate alarm problem would go away in no time.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  BallBounces
March 23, 2017 6:25 pm

+1

Tom Halla
March 23, 2017 2:57 pm

Instant North Korea? I think the DPRK uses energy at about the rate the greens advocate, so it must be nearly paradise./s

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 23, 2017 3:36 pm

North Korea is the rose colored glasses that the greens see as an ideal state to save the world. Some parts of the world have ideal religious laws, they go to Switzerland to escape them. Or Iranians go on holidays to some part in Russia.
If AGW people are posting on here they will not be exempt from the extremely harsh world they are advocating. They are too far down in rank.

charles nelson
March 23, 2017 2:57 pm

When I was a kid we used to write a letter to Santa listing everything we wanted for Christmas.
Next step was to burn it in the fire… the information would then travel up the chimney and get to directly to Santa’s HQ at the North Pole.
It might work.

Reply to  charles nelson
March 23, 2017 4:49 pm

I conducted that experiment annually for several years.

It worked. No “might” about it 🙂

March 23, 2017 2:58 pm

In the late 1980’s institutional care for psychiatric patients began to be closed down and patients were released into the general community. This process coincided with the collapse of Communism and the surplus lunatics and idle hands joined the Earth Hour and Global Warming Alarmism movement. The University of Melbourne is a typical institution filled with them.

March 23, 2017 3:00 pm

Heck. Reading this helped me realise how much I dislike the phrase ” carbon emissions”.
About as over used as ” sustainability” IMO. Has WUWT perpetuated it on purpose?.

Lars P.
Reply to  Macha
March 23, 2017 3:16 pm

Heck. Reading this helped me realise how much I dislike the phrase ” carbon emissions”.
Exactly. Like ‘carbon footprint’, ‘black carbon’ and all their twisted terminology. Somebody tell the morons that life on Earth is carbon based. This would be the shock of their life.

gnome
Reply to  Lars P.
March 23, 2017 3:52 pm

I don’t mind “carbon footprint” but all the others are nonsense. The carbon cycle is a well established concept which goes well beyond CO2 cycling.

seaice1
Reply to  Lars P.
March 23, 2017 4:53 pm

It would not be a shock to them as they are all aware of this. What is surprising is that you have such a low opinion of climate scientists that you think they are unaware of such basic science that a 4th grader would know. Either you have climate scientists wrong, or you are wrong. I know where I put my money.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
Reply to  Lars P.
March 23, 2017 11:59 pm

seaice1. “What is surprising is that you have such a low opinion of climate scientists that you think they are unaware of such basic science that a 4th grader would know”

There is nothing surprising in it. Reduced mental capacity has been their best defence so far. Anyone above that of a 4th grader would be more cautious:

Provided the mankind can adjust the climate and should move it to an arbitrary ideal at the end of 1800’s, as they insist.

Based recorded history, 15% of my people starved to death during snowy summers then. A large proportion had to abandon their homes and immigrate across the ocean to foreign lands to survive. And now, based on the latest in the article, more of my people should also be forced to suffer cold, dark and immobility. What more is need for to fulfil the criteria of an attempted mass genocide?

So, based on what you are now saying, it’s done in full capacity for the court of justice? Duly noted man.

GregK
Reply to  Macha
March 23, 2017 5:33 pm

What are the carbon emissions of a horse pulling a cart?

The autonomous vehicle of the future

Trebla
March 23, 2017 3:06 pm

Wow! It sounds so easy! Let’s DO IT!! (Not). These geniuses should note that companies like Suncor are spending billions of dollars acquiring competitors’ oil assets. I wonder why? If oil is going to be “phased out” that means a shrinking market for their products and no way to make a return on their investments. And Keystone just got the green light from Trump, so somebody better tell Trans Canada to put a hold on that investment, or put a pipeline in the size of a garden hose because that’s all that will be needed by 2040..

Editor
March 23, 2017 3:08 pm

How is this “science”?

On the eve of this year’s Earth hour (25 March), researchers propose a solution in the journal Science (24 March) for the global economy to rapidly reduce carbon emissions. The authors argue a carbon roadmap, driven by a simple rule of thumb or “carbon law” of halving emissions every decade, could catalyse disruptive innovation.

Such a “carbon law”, based on Moore’s Law in the computer industry, applies to cities, nations and industrial sectors.

The authors say fossil-fuel emissions should peak by 2020 at the latest and fall to around zero by 2050 to meet the UN’s Paris Agreement’s climate goal of limiting the global temperature rise to “well below 2°C” from preindustrial times.

And exactly what governmental body is supposed to pass this law?

This is mindbogglingly idiotic. Governments can’t pass laws to dictate “disruptive innovation.” Just because government passes a law, doesn’t mean that science and technology will advance at their legislated pace. This is as moronic as Henry Waxman…

We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap…

[…]

The way we have to do it is to change and transform our economy by moving to a low carbon emission economy. For example, we’ve got to be more efficient in the use of energy; we’ve got to use more renewable fuels; we’ve got to invest in technologies that will allow us to reduce or eliminate the sulfur in something like coal, which is a heavily polluted source of energy.

We’ve got to do all of these, and one of the best ways to accomplish the overall goal is through what’s called a cap-and-trade mechanism. We unleash the competition and the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans to develop technologies and try to figure out how to accomplish the goal, especially when there’s a cap on the total amount of pollution that will be going down over the years.

[…]

If we raise the price of energy, which will happen if we’re reducing the amount of carbon emissions, and industries have to figure out how to live in a carbon-constrained environment, they are going to have to figure it out because it’s in their profitable interest to figure it out.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/quote-of-the-week-5-waxmans-stunningly-stupid-statement/

I think I’ll celebrate Earth Hour by venting my gas grill for an hour.

ferdberple
Reply to  David Middleton
March 23, 2017 6:26 pm

If we raise the price of energy, which will happen if we’re reducing the amount of carbon emissions, and industries have to figure out how to live in a carbon-constrained environment, they are going to have to figure it out because it’s in their profitable interest to figure it out.
==============
there is nothing to figure out. they will raise prices or go out of business locally and move to some other country without cap and trade. either you will pay more or lose your job. CO2 will remain unchanged.

TDBraun
Reply to  David Middleton
March 23, 2017 6:42 pm

But “an international team of scientists” says this is what we should do. Who are we to question them? Surely they have taken into account every possible ramification this plan might have throughout the entire world, and all the numerous climate variables and every possible economic consequence, and have determined with scientific certainty what the other seven billion people in the world should do.

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
March 24, 2017 6:26 am

For years I’ve been debating with electric car enthusiasts who insist that if government were to pass a law requiring battery manufacturers to create the type of battery needed to make electrics work, then the companies would.
According to them, the only thing we lack is the will to do it.

Coeur de Lion
March 23, 2017 3:09 pm

They are all university men so shouldn’t they be well informed about third world needs? Have some brains? It’s all very depressing.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 23, 2017 3:19 pm

They appear to lack a coeur, de Lion.

Steve
March 23, 2017 3:09 pm

I propose a “Renewables Law” to wit: The Cost of Renewable Energy per KwH Increases every 5 years while the Validity of Climate Models Decreases with every 5 new Models. This can also be called the Law of Blatant Stupidity!

Tsk Tsk
March 23, 2017 3:15 pm

Psst! Moore’s Law ended about 5 years ago, kids. Sorry to burst your bubble. And when you figure out how to heat 1g of water 1C with less than 1Cal, then we’ll talk.

Reply to  Tsk Tsk
March 23, 2017 3:37 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/05/ces-2017-moores-law-not-dead-says-intel-boss/

Now c’mon — how can Moore’s law be dead? I don’t remember anyone going to jail from breaking it.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 23, 2017 3:52 pm

http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?doc_id=1286363

Intel’s entire existence is predicated on Moore’s Law as they’re basically a process company that does a bit of design on the side. Wanna bet that Intel’s latest chips are any cheaper?

Reply to  Tsk Tsk
March 23, 2017 4:05 pm

TT, EU mandated it so it must be possible. To cut CO2 emissions, no electric kettles over 1200 watts allowed. But no regulation on kettle water volume. See. Just as smart as this carbon law paper.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  ristvan
March 23, 2017 4:15 pm

Clearly they were drinking too much tea for their own good.

schitzree
Reply to  ristvan
March 23, 2017 6:06 pm

Just out of curiosity, how many watts is one of those keurig style hot beverage machines? You know, the ones that make one cup at a time, really fast?

For that matter how many watts is a Starbucks cappuccino machine? I’m betting those somehow slipped under the regulators yardstick.

GregK
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
March 23, 2017 5:34 pm

Moore’s Law now seems to apply to memory rather than processor speed

markl
Reply to  GregK
March 23, 2017 5:38 pm

Both.

Jer0me
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
March 23, 2017 7:20 pm

And when you figure out how to heat 1g of water 1C with less than 1Cal, then we’ll talk.

Please sir, please sir! I can!

Use 1 Joule (which is less than 1 cal 🙂

Janice Moore
March 23, 2017 3:17 pm

That entire hard sell ad can be summed up in one sentence:

Buy our wind and solar parts.

(“And,” cries a little voice from the back, “our temperature data products!!”)

Brought to you by The Enviroprofiteers (large and small).

***********************************************************

What a bunch of CLOWNS (“based on Moore’s law” — lol). A “law” in science is based on observations.

Their phony “law” is simply run-of-the-mill edict.

Response of a sane society:

Go jump in the lake.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 23, 2017 3:19 pm

I wouldn’t be so diplomatic. This guy had the proper response to enviro-thuggery…

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/16/quote-of-the-week-best-response-to-rico20-exxonknew-attorney-generals-ever/

Slacko
Reply to  David Middleton
March 23, 2017 6:04 pm

David, I don’t think Janice is being diplomatic. She is likely aware that the expression refers not to just any old lake, but to the lake of fire and brimstone. See Rev. 19:20 and Rev. 20:10-15. The antichrist and the false prophet must be the first to go, followed closely by false climate prophets. Janice is spot on.

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Middleton
March 23, 2017 6:44 pm

Well, Slacko, I must admit that I was NOT aware of that being the origin for that expression. Thank you for letting me know that it is the equivalent of “Go to blazes!” I thought it was a parallel to “blow it out your duffel bag” (please, do not tell me if there is some disgusting meaning to that one…. I DON’T want to know).

So! I’m flattered that you thought I would know…. and humbled by the fact that I didn’t. Winning combo, there!

#(:))

Slacko
Reply to  David Middleton
March 23, 2017 9:06 pm

“Duffel bag” ?? Ain’t ever heard that one before, so I gotta plead iggerance.
Love you Janice.

PS. Were they your dogs in the video you posted a few weeks ago? If so you have a really sweet voice.

Reply to  David Middleton
March 24, 2017 1:34 am

Essentially the duffel bag expression means the same thing, Janice. Although it originated as “blow it out your barracks bag.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Middleton
March 24, 2017 9:02 am

Hi, Slacko,

What a kind, generous-hearted, person you are. Thank you for your warmth and caring.

I can’t remember the video (one with female narration in it), but, my voice sounds like this (except when I am angry, heh):

A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes (at the risk of further worsening my reputation for strong-minded thinking, this is one of my favorite songs)

(youtube)

So. Now you know why I will always use writing for my main means of communication. Even then, I often have a hard time being taken seriously!

Thank you for “talking” to me in such a friendly way. People like you make it possible for me to remain at WUWT.

Your grateful WUWT ally for truth,

Janice

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Middleton
March 24, 2017 9:04 am

Thank you, Writing Observer, for making sure I understood. Sigh. See what I mean, Slacko?

Slacko
Reply to  David Middleton
March 24, 2017 9:45 pm

Janice Moore March 24, 2017 at 9:02 am

Yeah, that’s very similar to the voice that was speaking to the dogs so I guess maybe I was right. I’ve deleted that thread from my inbox though so I’d have to do a search. Thanks.

NW sage
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 23, 2017 6:02 pm

The authors of the so called ‘carbon law’ have it completely backward. A law of this type is formulated based on observations (like Janice said). Only Obama – and the ilk – make pronouncements like the carbon law and then expect the real world to re-arrange itself to fit that law. Nature just doesn’t behave because some human ‘said so’!

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 25, 2017 3:10 am

Janice Moore, Whenever I see you postings it brings a smile to my face old tho’ it be it is the face of an old enquiring engineer. Much have I tried to study history and the AGW stuff reminds me of Phlogiston for it makes as much sense. History tells me that old Sol has some repeating habits of rampart and quite every few hundred years, that give us warm periods and cold periods. Old sol at the moment and most likely for the next few cycles is going on sabbatical leave the next few decades or more are likely to be bloody cold in Europe and North America. If I live long enough I am going to enjoy the idiots with their wind mills and solar panels freezing their butts off in the dark. I will keep warm using good Aussie hard wood in my pot belly stove. Love.

Janice Moore
Reply to  wayne Job
March 25, 2017 7:54 am

Aw, Wayne. Thanks. 🙂 (and I’ve not forgotten how very kind you were to me when I wailed about older women and men and well….. your reassurance is still resonating — thank you again)

I should have known you were an engineer. Engineers are especially wonderful people (in my personal experience). Take care.

Herb
March 23, 2017 3:20 pm

This is unsurprising from the Uni of Melbourne which was once a great institution. Victoria is the State in Australia that leans most to the left.

What’s a “pre-industrial temperature” anyway? Are they talking about the LIA or the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period or the Minoan Warm period?

What guarantee is there that limiting CO2 emissions to <400ppm has any effect on limiting the natural increase in temperature since the LIA?

March 23, 2017 3:25 pm

The article speaks of “Moor’s Law”.

Let the “Carbon Law”, then, heretofore, be known as … Moron’s Law

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 23, 2017 3:29 pm

Oops! Moore’s Law … spelled it wrong the first time.

But Moron’s Law was spelled correctly.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 23, 2017 3:42 pm

As a battery designer, I had somebody ask me if Ohm’s Law applied to batteries. I answered, “Of course it does. It’s a law. If you break it, then you go to jail.”

I received a well-deserved laugh for that. Don’t these guys understand that they are scientists? You don’t just arbitrarily invent physical laws on a whim.

Killer Marmot
March 23, 2017 3:25 pm

Yes, we should assume that science and technology will continue to advance, with many major breakthroughs likely to come. No, we should never assume that major advancement is inevitable in any one area, no matter how much money we spend on it. That is hubris.

An example is cancer research. Scientists have conducted a “war on cancer” for the last 45 years, with the aim of eradicating it. Although many important advancements have been made, we are still a long way from the goal.

Reply to  Killer Marmot
March 23, 2017 4:13 pm

Good example. Cancer is an inevitable byproduct of Wear and Tear in DNA replication. New paper estimates 2/3 of all cancers are just ‘bad luck’. Highly recoomend the recent ebook, Emporer of Disease. An oncologists up close and personal history of the war on cancer.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  ristvan
March 23, 2017 4:17 pm

Which basically just becomes an ECC problem. We just need to find a way to increase our correction power.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  ristvan
March 24, 2017 9:43 am

ristvan – March 23, 2017 at 4:13 pm

New paper estimates 2/3 of all cancers are just ‘bad luck’.

Yup, and I was please to read about that being reported in today’s news Fox News

But me thinks those researchers were just being “polite” with their “2/3 bad luck estimate” ……. when in fact it should have been an “estimate of 95% bad luck”.

J Mac
March 23, 2017 3:28 pm

We already have a ‘Carbon Law’ on this planet!
Carbon Law of Earth: All known life forms on planet earth are carbon based, with no exceptions.

Reply to  J Mac
March 23, 2017 3:32 pm

The new “carbon law” would state that all carbon-based life forms are based on pollution. We are born dirty. This is why we need faith in Jesus and climate models.

J Mac
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 23, 2017 3:39 pm

No.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 23, 2017 3:52 pm

Carbon-based == original sin?

ferdberple
Reply to  J Mac
March 23, 2017 5:59 pm

Carbon Law of Earth: without carbon we die.

March 23, 2017 3:30 pm

This is a great idea, but why stop at carbon. Why don’t we pass a law to reduce the force of gravity by 50% every decade. It will save enormously on the costs of flights to all the climate conferences, and will make space travel not just accessible but mandatory for all.

J Mac
Reply to  andrewpattullo
March 23, 2017 3:34 pm

+10! Was thinking similarly… but you stated it with much superior grace and wit.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  andrewpattullo
March 23, 2017 4:28 pm

I feel lighter, already!

ferdberple
Reply to  andrewpattullo
March 23, 2017 6:04 pm

reduce the force of gravity by 50% every decade.
========
Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers move over. The Battle of the Bulge is ended. Eat all you want and the pounds will melt away as if by magic. Exercise and dieting will become so yesterday. Fat will become the new thin.

March 23, 2017 3:33 pm

I am going to celebrate earth hour by watching the NCAA college basketball tournament. The first round was boring, but the second round was pure march madness! I can’t wait for the games tonight and tomorrow.

J Mac
Reply to  alexwade
March 23, 2017 3:38 pm

2nd that, Alex!
Go Badgers!

Reply to  J Mac
March 23, 2017 6:53 pm

Badgers …. Badgers … we don’t need no stinking Badgers….

Reply to  J Mac
March 23, 2017 6:57 pm

Well, after they beat Florida and Baylor then we won’t need them anymore.

asybot
Reply to  alexwade
March 23, 2017 11:00 pm

And so they were ( except Kansas they looked awesome but I am rooting for Gonzaga)! Saturday is going to be a HOOT and I can’t wait!

March 23, 2017 3:35 pm

These people are too smart to be this stupid.
.
.
.
.
.
Aren’t they?

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 23, 2017 3:55 pm

Perhaps William F. Buckley Jr.’s comment is apropos: “I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 23, 2017 5:24 pm

You’re on the right track.

Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them. – George Orwell.

Some versions are attributed to Bertrand Russell in My Philosophical Development, 1959. Cheers –

March 23, 2017 3:35 pm

Then there’s that nasty, corrosion-inducing, cell-damaging oxygen, The stuff is slowly killing us, even as we breathe it in.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 23, 2017 3:40 pm

Don’t forget dihydrogen oxide… People drown in it all the time. Let’s hit that with Moore’on’s Law too!

u.k.(us)
Reply to  David Middleton
March 23, 2017 3:44 pm

Trick questions just make people feel stupid, education might be the better pathway.

Chimp
Reply to  David Middleton
March 23, 2017 6:58 pm

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Hydric acid sounds scarier.

Reply to  David Middleton
March 24, 2017 3:15 pm

Chimp March 23, 2017 at 6:58 pm
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Hydric acid sounds scarier.

Very true. That original classic left out “Ocean Acidification”.
(I think. The dangers of dihydrogen monoxide and the reason it needs to be controlled or eliminated were pretty well covered on the site. I just might have missed it. The science wasn’t as settled back then when I first read it.8-)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 23, 2017 3:45 pm

RK,
That is why you should take anti-oxidant supplements with your Cheerios.

Clyde Spencer
March 23, 2017 3:42 pm

It is all a fool’s errand! Let’s assume that fossil fuels could be phased out completely in the next 100 years. That means the total fossil fuel CO2 emitted would be 50% of what it would be otherwise. Let’s further assume that 50% of the recent warming can actually be attributed to fossil fuels. Let’s further assume that the past rate of global warming of approximately 1 deg C is probable for the next century under a business as usual scenario. That means that only half the warming is under our control and it will be only half as great. That is, the fossil fuel warming will be approximately 0.5 x 0.5 x 1, or 0.25 deg C. In other words, by forcing the world to adopt a standard of living not unlike North Korea, the world will only warm 0.8 deg C instead of 1 deg C.

The optimistic believe that we can maintain our lifestyle by using ‘renewable’ energy. That overlooks the fact that bootstrapping an unprecedented change in infrastructure and building alternative power sources will initially require a huge manufacturing boom that will have to be fueled by fossil fuels until such time as nearly all the in-place power sources are replaced.

Janice Moore
March 23, 2017 3:45 pm

The article is loaded with baloney, but this one gets the prize for the BALONIEST STATEMENT OF THE DAY (HOUR? — they come out with them at such high frequency, it may be MINUTE!):

In the last decade, the share of renewables in the energy sector has doubled every 5.5 years. If doubling continues at this pace fossil fuels will exit the energy sector …

Given the essentially 0 inventory output possible of wind-powered plants, “renewables” will be walking out that door arm in arm with FF.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 23, 2017 4:18 pm

The old confuce nameplate with capacity factor trick. And starting from a very small number, doubling every 5 years is still a very small number.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 23, 2017 5:55 pm

“If current trends continue ….” There should be a law against that assumption.

I tell people, when I was a kid, we had five minutes of weather every day (usually between the news and sports.) Now we have weather 24 hours a day. If current trends continue, we’ll have like 96 hours of weather every day in a few decades. There will be tornadoes, hailstorms hurricanes, and droughts at the same time.

We’re doomed

ferdberple
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 23, 2017 6:14 pm

the share of renewables in the energy sector has doubled every 5.5 years.
======================
then why the need for a carbon tax? anything with exponential growth will quickly outgrow its competitors.

for example, lets assume that renewables are 10% of the energy sector. not unreasonable, given how fast they have grown. then long before 2050, in fact before 2040, the energy sector will be entirely renewables, with plenty of room for grow by 2050.

year – share of energy sector
2017 – 10%
2022.5 – 20%
2028 – 40%
2033.5 – 80%
2039 – 160%
2044.5 – 320%
2050 – 640%

1 2 3 4